[tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: yItlhHa'

[DloraH]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:31:17 +0100
"De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:13, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > It seems to me that {-Ha'} acts differently depending on whether
> > the verb is a verb of quality (a "to be" verb) or an action, and
> > whether it is reversible or not (or to put it another way, whether
> > the opposite state or action is considered to be related to the
> > original verb by a reversal).
> >
> > Here are examples of the four possible verb types:
> > {ghungHa'} "be unhungry" (be satiated, as being hungry is a state
> > which can be undone or reversed)
> > {jaQHa'} "be shallow" (while the act of making something deep is
> > reversible, being deep itself is not, so this is just the opposite
> > state) {jotlhHa'} "put back up" ({jotlh} is considered to have a
> > reverse or opposite action)
> > {jatlhHa'} "misspeak" ({jatlh} is not reversible or has no
> > opposite, so this has to be interpreted as "speak wrongly")
> >
> > I think that {jotlhHa'} *cannot* be interpreted as "take down
> > wrongly" and {jatlhHa'} *cannot* be understood as "un-speak". Of
> > course, for some verbs, it may not be possible to tell based on the
> > definition whether Klingons consider them to be reversible or not,
> > like {'ey}.
> >
> > Now someone will post canon counterexamples which prove my
> > observation wrong.
> >
> 
> Really? No objections or counterexamples? Are most people on away
> missions?
> 

Why do you think that jotlhHa' *cannot* be "take down wrongly"?

"He took down the tapestry wrongly and tore it."
"He took down the flag wrongly and dishonored it."

I'm not saying this is what jotlhHa' means, I'm just questioning the
"cannot" part of the argument.


- DloraH